memory

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the output fields and gives interpretive guidance, but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, if it triggers side effects, or if it requires authentication. For a listing tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and each clause adds value: the first lists fields, the second provides actionable guidance. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and no annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains what the output contains and how to interpret it for maintenance actions. It could mention if it only returns a summary or full details, but the field list implies enough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema fully describes the single parameter 'repo' with a description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, and since parameter count is only 1, the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists repo review-memory entries and specifies the exact fields (fingerprint, grade, reason, created, lastApplied). It distinctly differentiates from siblings like 'remember' (likely adds entries) and 'context' (likely broader context retrieval) by focusing on listing memory entries with a specific purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides usage guidance by describing when to use the lastApplied field to identify dead pricing and repeated entries for promotion, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. Sibling tools are not directly referenced, but the workflow context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.